Archive

Archive for the ‘A.G. Holder’ Category

BLAMMO!!! Judge Jeanine Pirro Hits Another Home Run Against The Marxist-In-Chief obama

September 28, 2013 1 comment

OK, OK….. I’m starting to like Judge Jeanine Pirro these days. She is starting to call this horrid regime out in NO uncertain terms.   Too bad more “journalists” aren’t telling the truth in this way…..

 

 

Quotes For Today: obama’s IRS Thuggery

September 23, 2013 Leave a comment

“The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and
to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.”
— Arthur Lee
(1740-1792) Virgina delegate to the Continental Congress in 1782
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Arthur.Lee.Quote.FEDD


“Compare this [U.S. taxation] to the plight of medieval serfs.
They only had to give the lord of the manor a third of their output
and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us.”
— Daniel Mitchell
Economist
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Daniel.Mitchell.Quote.C00B


“Every day, IRS agents levy liens on homes, bank accounts, and businesses; they confiscate cars, furniture, boats, and other
personal property without the constitutional protections of due notice, hearing, and due process. If a person forcibly resists, government agents kill
him for “resisting arrest.” ”
— Jacob G. Hornberger
American author, journalist, politician, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation
Source: Terrorism—Public and Private, he Tyranny of Gun Control, 76 (Future of Freedom Foundation 1997).
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Jacob.Hornberger.Quote.C387

Lois Lerner

irsscandal

irsteapartyscandal

irsthugs

irsthugs irsredistribution

irsobama

kingandqueenobama

Gun Grabber obama Pardons Man Convicted of Firearm Charges

March 2, 2013 1 comment

President Obama issued his first series of presidential pardons today, including one for a man who was convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm.

Larry Wayne Thornton of Forsyth, Ga., was sentenced to four years of probation for possession of an unregistered firearm” and “possession of a firearm without a serial number.”  He is one of 17 people pardoned today.

The pardon comes as Obama is emphasizing, as part of his gun control push, the need to know who is buying weapons.

“If you want to buy a gun — whether it’s from a licensed dealer or a private seller — you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one,” Obama said in January, adding that “We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals.  And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

CONTINUE READING: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-pardons-man-convicted-of-firearm-charges/article/2523010?custom_click=rss

MAGPUL SUSPENDS ALL SALES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ANTI-BILL OF RIGHT’S STATES


 

Regarding LEO Sales

March 1st, 2013

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds.  After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

 

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state. 

 

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution – specifically the second and fourteenth amendments – as it applies to all citizens.

 

Richard Fitzpatrick

President/CEO – Founder

Magpul Industries

http://magpul.com/ourgear.html

Montana shooters to challenge AG holder in court March 4th

March 1, 2013 1 comment

montanavsholder

By Gary Marbut, Montana Shooting Sports Association

Nearly a decade of carefully planned effort to challenge federal Commerce Clause power will see another landmark on Monday, March 4th, when MSSA v. Holder has oral argument before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon.  MSSA in the case caption is the Montana Shooting Sports Association whose President, Gary Marbut, crafted the original Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2004 specifically to lay the groundwork for this current litigation.

MontanaFlagGuns

AG eric holder, TREASONIST, Shows His Smug-Faced Contempt For We, The People….AGAIN


holder-wanted-poster

Holder answer on contempt charge shows disrespect for more than Congress

.

Reacting to statements by Attorney General Eric Holder that he did not respect members of Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa issued a statement today calling the head of the Justice Department “arrogantly dismissive.”

Holders comments came in an ABC News interview Wednesday, responding to a question by Pierre Thomas about being found in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal.

“I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder replied. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

CONTINUE READING: http://www.examiner.com/article/holder-answer-on-contempt-charge-shows-disrespect-for-more-than-congress?CID=examiner_alerts_article

MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT: MSSA v. Holder SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY

February 28, 2013 Leave a comment

Dear MSSA Friends,

MSSA v. Holder, our lawsuit to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, will have oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon, this coming Monday, March 4th.

With many thanks to generous MSSA donors, my costs for travel lodgings and other are covered by MSSA and I will be there.  I’ll get you a report when I get back.

Audio and/or video of the oral argument should appear on the Ninth Circuit’s Website by Noon on Tuesday, at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php

Most of you will remember that the MFFA uses firearms as the vehicle to challenge federal power to regulate or prohibit basically everything under the enumerated power given to Congress by the states in the Constitution to “regulate commerce … among the several states …”, the Commerce Clause.  MSSA advances some fresh and powerful arguments that have never been made in Commerce Clause litigation before (such as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments actually amended the Commerce Clause and its possible implementation).

I wrote and submitted an article today to The Daily Caller in Washington, D.C. telling more of the story about MSSA’s Commerce Clause challenge.  If that article is published before I leave, I’ll shoot you the link.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

GOA: Background checks & ATF’s illegal copying of 4473 forms

February 21, 2013 4 comments

Tuesday, 12 February 2013 15:50
Written by Erich Pratt and Michael Hammond

Current Gun Control Proposals Will Endanger the Rights of Law-abiding Americans

— President ignoring real solutions to school violence

 

 

Members of the U.S. Senate Committee:

 

In January, the President unveiled 23 Executive Actions on gun control and a myriad of other anti-gun legislative proposals. These initiatives run the gamut — from imposing gun and magazine bans to expanding our current background check system.

 

Of course, none of the policies he recently unveiled would have stopped Adam Lanza in Connecticut from killing his mother, stealing her weapons and carrying them onto school grounds to commit his despicable crimes.

 

Sadly, the President didn’t deal with the one proposal that would actually make a difference — a proposal that is discussed below. But to be clear, none of the President’s initiatives would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. Yet, all of them would seriously infringe upon Second Amendment rights and endanger the safety of American citizens.

 

While all of his proposals are dangerous, perhaps the biggest threat is the call for Universal Background Checks, and the accompanying threat of gun owner registration. So that’s where we will begin.

 

Background checks & ATF’s illegal copying of 4473 forms

 

Several gun dealers have contacted Gun Owners of America and asked for our advice. Invariably, they say that the ATF is, or has been, at their store — making wholesale copies of their 4473 forms — and they want to know if that’s legal.

 

We are not going to betray their confidence without permission, but GOA can say that this has occurred enough times to make us believe these are not isolated incidents. (GOA has attached several redacted stories from gun dealers in the Appendix.)

 

The copying of 4473 forms has happened despite the prohibition in 18 USC 923(g)(1)(D) which specifically prohibits anyone in the Justice Department from “seiz[ing] any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law.”

 

Our experience is not unique:

 

* ATF using digital scanners. “ATF has been copying FFL Bound Books for years — with or without FFL permission. During annual compliance inspections in other states, FFL dealers have reported that ATF industry operations investigators (IOI) brought in digital cameras and photographed the entire dealer ‘Bound Book’ without permission of the FFL holder. Other dealers reported investigators brought in digital scanners and scanned portions of the Bound Book — line by line. Of course, the Bound Book contains the dealer’s full record of lawful firearm sales transaction records.”i

 

*FFL’s complain of illegal ATF activity. “The [ATF] is engaged in new illegal activity, this time in the state of Alaska. According to gun store owners in Anchorage, ATF agents are requiring that they submit what is called ‘4473 Forms’ going as far back as 2007…. The ATF has the authority to inspect or request a copy of the form if agents are conducting a criminal investigation.

 

“But nowhere does the law or the rules and regulations of the ATF permit the agency to require gun stores to simply turn over these records en mass as a matter of course. The gun stores in Anchorage are not being told that their records are being requested as part of a criminal investigation of any kind. The ATF has not specified certain forms from specific time frames as one would expect during such an investigation. The agency is telling the stores that it wants all of these records, in totality, going back to 2007.”ii

 

If the ATF is willing to engage in this activity — in full view of gun dealers — one can only imagine what is being done behind closed doors when the names of innocent gun buyers are phoned in for NICS checks. Can we truly be sure that every gun buyer’s name that is entered into the NICS computer system is completely deleted and scrubbed, without a backup being made … anywhere?

 

Past attempts at turning background checks into a national registry

 

In 1989, a Justice Department report stated that, “Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms.”iii

 

Indeed, several attempts have been made — most notably during the Clinton administration — to register the names of gun buyers:

 

* Justice Department initiates registration (1994). The Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states’ background check programs. This attempt at registration was subsequently defeated in the courts.iv

 

* More gun owner registration (1996). Computer software distributed by the Justice Department allowed police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers. This software — known as FIST — also kept information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc.v This demonstrates how easily background checks can be used to register gun owners’ information.

 

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998). Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyers’ names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”vi Subsequently, Congress passed the “Smith amendment” in 1998 to mandate the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.”

 

Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to registering every gun owner in the country. While this won’t be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children, it will give bureaucrats a roadmap for gun confiscation.

 

The link between gun owner registration and confiscation

 

We know that gun confiscation is the ultimate endgame for many on the Left. While some will try to deny this, there have already been too many outspoken voices to ignore this simple truth. Consider just a few, well-known cases:

 

* “[Gun] confiscation could be an option,” declared New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a radio interview (December 27, 2012). In fact, a confidential memorandum advocating gun confiscation was circulated by New York Democrats prior to the most recent round of gun control which passed in the state.vii

 

* “We cannot have big guns out here,” said Iowa Rep. Dan Muhlbauer. “Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them.” (Interview with the Iowa Daily Times Herald, December 19, 2012.)

 

* “No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police, right before several law-enforcement agencies began confiscating the firearms of lawful gun owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (2005).

 

* In the mid-1960’s officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.viii In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city’s tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms…. Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”ix

 

The task of confiscating guns is much easier when the government has a registration list. And, again, this is the number one reason that Gun Owners of America opposes background checks. They give federal bureaucrats the framework for a national registration system.

 

If the Left gets its way, we will be much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need to enforce the confiscation they so adamantly desire.

 

Background Checks Can Easily be Used to Deny Honest Americans (like veterans)

 

While the confiscation threat is, by far, the biggest reason for opposing Universal Background Checks, there are many other reasons, as well.

 

For starters, the NICS list currently contains the names of more than 150,000 law-abiding veterans who didn’t do anything wrong (but honorably served their country and then sought counseling for their wartime experiences) — and could soon contain millions of names of Medicaid patients with post partem depression, IDEA students with ADHD, and soldiers, police, and firemen with PTSD.x

 

Not only that, requiring a background check on every private sale or transfer would impose an incredible hardship upon decent people. Many sellers in very rural areas would find it very difficult to travel hundreds of miles, accompanied by their purchasers, in order to make a sale in a licensed dealer’s place of business. This inconvenience for rural sellers would be even more significant if, as happens almost 10% of the time, the purchase — usually for no reason at all — is not immediately approved.

 

In a significant number of current transactions, purchases are held up for no reason other than the fact that the seller’s name is similar to someone else’s name. Often, these mistaken identities permanently block gun purchases when (1) the FBI’s response remains non-committal after three days, (2) the gun dealer refuses to sell based on a non-committal response, despite the language of the Brady Law, and (3) the FBI’s response is “sue us.”

 

The pact that WalMart made in 2008 with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — and his fraudulently-named Mayors Against Illegal Guns — is symptomatic of this problem. In the deal, WalMart agreed to a ten-point agenda pushed by Bloomberg.xi

 

In particular, point #9 prohibits firearms sales to purchasers who have not received an affirmative go-ahead at the end of the NICS check’s three-day waiting period.

 

In other words, if the FBI gives a “yellow light” — perhaps, because a gun buyer is unlucky enough to have the same name as someone in the NICS system — then WalMart was essentially saying it would not sell the firearm, even though federal law specifically allows the sale to proceed.

 

This three-day provision was inserted into federal law to prevent federal bureaucrats from illegitimately denying millions of gun buyers — simply by its refusal to take a position. Some gun dealers choose not to sell a firearm after the three-day limit. Others don’t.

 

The result is that many law-abiding gun owners can’t purchase firearms, not because the FBI has disapproved them, but because it has refused to answer “yes” or “no.”

 

It’s actions like this which can fundamentally transform the Brady Act, making it so that a whole lot of law-abiding gun owners aren’t able to purchase guns. And we bet that the FBI will be giving a lot fewer green-lights in the future, particularly if universal background checks are enacted.

 

Background checks violate rights, open door to abuses

 

Gun Owners of America has long argued that honest gun owners should not have to prove their innocence to the government before exercising their God-given rights. One should never give a bureaucrat a chance to say no — it only leads to abuses.

 

For one thing, the FBI’s computer system has often gone offline for hours at a time — sometimes for days. And when it has failed on weekends, it results in the virtual blackout of gun sales (and gun shows) across the country.

 

When the NICS system is down, the only place one can buy a gun legally is from a private seller, and now the President wants to eliminate that last bastion of freedom!

 

Recently, the FBI’s system went down on Black Friday, angering many gun dealers and gun buyers around the country. “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” said Rick Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Maine. “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun.”xii

 

Researcher John Lott says that, in addition to crashes in the computers doing the background checks, “8 percent of background checks are not accomplished within two hours, with almost all of these delays taking three days or longer.” And almost 100% of these initial denials turn out to have been illegitimate.xiii

 

Such delays could be deadly for people, especially women, who need a gun in an emergency to defend themselves from an ex-boyfriend or husband. Consider some of the tragic consequences that result when a woman’s right to protect herself is put on hold:

 

* A California realtor, herein referred to as “Jane,” was concerned about her safety at work, so she applied to buy a handgun. But the Golden State requires her to wait 10 days before picking up the gun. Sadly, she was raped by a client within that 10-day period.xiv

 

* Likewise, Bonnie Elmasri inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. Unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.xv

 

* Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later.xvi Had she had to wait like Bonnie or Jane, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

 

While none of these tragedies specifically occurred because of delays resulting from a NICS check, it does underscore the truth behind the oft quoted adage that a “right delayed is a right denied.”

 

Five more reasons for opposing Universal Background Checks

 

Gun Owners of America has produced pages and pages of arguments that explain the problems — and abuses — that have gone hand-in-hand with background checks.xvii But, in brief, it’s important to note these five additional problems.

 

FIRST: The principle that no American can own a firearm without getting the go-ahead from the government is offensive to Americans. We don’t require breathalyzer checks before people get into their cars even though drunk drivers kill more than 30 times more people than “assault rifles” do. Nor do we require background checks on clubs and hammers, which also kill more often than “assault rifles.”xviii

 

SECOND: Universal background checks would not have stopped Adam Lanza (who stole his guns), or James Holmes or Jared Loughner (who passed background checks).

 

THIRD: One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that the Brady law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did “not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”xix

 

FOURTH: Throughout its history, the background check system has been plagued by serious failures. On the one hand, large percentages of gun owners have been erroneously denied — according to one GAO report, almost 50% of denials were the result of administrative snafus or unpaid parking tickets.xx On the other hand, the law has failed to put real criminals behind bars — in 2010, only 13 people were potentially sent to jail as a result of being stopped by NICS checks.xxi

 

FIFTH: Can we really trust the administration that gave us Fast & Furious to respect our Second Amendment rights? The Obama Administration knowingly approved (via background checks) the sales of thousands of guns to the Mexican Cartel in order to justify calls for greater gun control here at home. As a result, several hundred Mexicans have been killed — not to mention at least one U.S. federal agent. Considering the administration’s record on guns, the administration should NOT be trusted to keep guns out of the “wrong hands.” Isn’t this a case of the fox guarding the hen house?

 

Let’s be honest: Universal background checks are nothing more than the ineffectual platform from which gun haters will make their next set of demands, based on the next horrific tragedy.

 

At this point, we now move on to some of the other gun control proposals that are on the table.

 

The High Cost of Limiting Semi-autos and Gun Magazines

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein has reintroduced her semi-auto ban, but her new version is one on steroids. Feinstein’s bill (S. 150) would ban the types of shotguns, rifles and handguns that millions of Americans currently own. And possibly, depending on statutory interpretation, her bill could ban all magazines of whatever size.  Among other things, S. 150 would do this by supercharging the 1994 semi-auto ban by:

* Banning all semi-autos with just one cosmetic feature (pistol grip, forward grip, folding stock, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, threaded barrel);

 

* Banning all semi-autos with fixed magazines of over 10 rounds (but see below as to how a sneaky “loophole” may use this to ban ALL magazines of any size);

* Allowing for grandfathering and transfer of semi-autos (but prohibiting the transfer of magazines and prohibiting the transfer of semi-autos without a Brady Check); and

 

* Banning all magazines that can be “readily restored … [or] converted” to accept more than 10 rounds.

 

In regard to the final bullet item, there is one very important question: Does “readily” modify “converted” or does it merely modify “restored”?  How will the ATF interpret this?

 

If it’s the latter, the bill will ban ALL magazines of whatever size.

 

Does the Feinstein ban violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

 

As noted above, S. 150 would cover all semi-automatics that contain just one cosmetic feature, such as a pistol grip. Ironically, agents from the Department of Homeland Security are acquiring 30 round magazines and 7,000 assault weapons because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”xxii

 

Indeed, there are many reasons that law-abiding Americans, including those who are disabled, would desire to have these types of firearms — and to even have pistol grips on their firearms. Consider the testimony from one GOA member:

 

Feinstein’s ban on pistol grips is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have severe arthritis in my hands and wrists due to repetitive motion injuries working as a correctional officer. I cannot operate a rifle or shotgun without a pistol grip as my hands don’t bend enough to grip a traditional stock. If pistol grips are banned, I will be denied my 2nd Amendment rights. I am at considerable risk for retribution from criminal elements, and in fact a former inmate from the psychiatric ward showed up at my house just 2 weeks ago, luckily he was not intent on violence, at least this time.

 

It is the height of hypocrisy to say these firearms are useful self-defense weapons for Homeland Security agents, but that they are not useful for regular Americans like the GOA member listed above. Or that they shouldn’t be available for women like Maryland resident Sharon Ramboz who used an AR-15 rifle to defend herself and her three children against several burglars.xxiii

 

Banning standard magazines (or larger) will make people less safe

 

Some in Congress want to limit the size of gun magazines. But they can only do so by threatening our God-given rights and by putting people in greater danger.

 

Those who are unfamiliar with guns simply don’t understand how self-defense works. Real life is not like the latest action movie where the bad guys shoot their guns endlessly (and miss), but the good guys fire off one or two rounds and hit their targets.

 

When Matthew Murray entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007, intent on killing hundreds of people, it was Jeanne Assam (one of the worshipers there) who fired off 10 rounds before Murray was critically injured enough to halt the attack and end his own life.

 

Good thing there was only one attacker. If Assam had used a reduced-capacity magazine or there were multiple attackers, she would have been out of luck. So would have:

 

* Those New Orleans residents who, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, discharged more than two dozen rounds during one firefight, where they fended off a roving gang in the Algiers neighborhood; or,

 

* The Korean merchants who armed themselves with so-called “assault” weapons (and lots of ammunition) during the Los Angeles riots. Their stores remained standing, while others around them burned to the ground.

 

All of this just underscores the point that when you are facing gang or mob violence — and the police are nowhere to be found — you need more than just a six-shooter.

 

Just last month, a Georgia woman defended her twins by shooting an aggressor in her home. She unloaded her six-shot revolver, hitting the perpetrator five times in the head and neck. Nevertheless, the thug was still able to get up and walk out of the house. Now, just imagine if this woman was facing multiple attackers. She would have been out of ammunition, and she and her children would have been in great danger.xxiv

 

Self-defense expert Massad Ayoob talks about an Arkansas drunk who opened fire on an officer, who then responded by firing 29 shots. It was only the last bullet which finally killed the drunk and stopped him from shooting.xxv Same with an Illinois criminal who was shot 33 times by the police before the druggie finally dropped and was unable to shoot any longer.xxvi

 

In the real world we live in, there are violent gangs who get high on drugs and are resistant to pain when they attack. Banning the tens of millions of “high capacity” magazines that are already in circulation won’t keep them out of dangerous hands. But infringing the Second Amendment will threaten our safety.

 

Firearms, and magazine capacity, is not about hunting deer

 

To listen to much of the discussion around Capitol Hill, one would think the Second Amendment is just about hunting. “You don’t need an AK-47 to go deer hunting,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (July 24, 2012).

 

“I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting,” said Senator Joe Manchin on Morning Joe this past December.

 

Likewise, the President has stated that, “I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.”xxvii

 

We are glad to hear the President make reference to “protection,” but all of these comments — and the whole emphasis on hunting — distracts from the real reason that the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution.

 

On at least two occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has forcefully presented the ultimate reason for the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights. In Heller v. McDonald (2008), the Supreme Court stated that an armed populace is “better able to resist tyranny.”xxviii And in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court reiterated the definitive purpose for owning firearms:

 

* “[St. George Tucker] described the right to keep and bear arms as ‘the true palladium of liberty’ and explained that prohibitions on the right would place liberty ‘on the brink of destruction.’”xxix

 

* “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”xxx

 

For these reasons, any discussion of “hunting deer” completely misses the mark. The Second Amendment was never about shooting Bambi or other animals. It was intended to protect the right of people to defend themselves against any aggressor — both foreign and domestic.

 

The Second Amendment states that this right “shall not be infringed.” This is very similar to the language in the Declaration of Independence which declares that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Unalienable rights are those God-given liberties which cannot be in any way infringed, delayed or denied to those who are law-abiding citizens.

 

We don’t limit First Amendment rights and gag movie-goers to prevent them from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Likewise, we should not be “gagging” law-abiding gun owners and infringing their rights through background checks, gun bans and magazine limitations.

 

A policy that works to reduce school violence

 

It’s not too much access to firearms that is plaguing America. That’s not what has resulted in the recent spate of school violence. America was virtually gun control-free in the 1950s, and yet kids were not using guns to shoot up schools.

 

The problem is that there are too many restrictions today which prevent good people from acting in self-defense. Virtually all of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country over the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones.

 

And that’s why the Congress should repeal the Gun-Free Zones Ban which prevents armed teachers or principals from protecting the children — just like Assistant Principal Joel Myrick did at his Mississippi high school in 1997.

 

To this end, Texas Rep. Steve Stockman has introduced H.R. 35, the Safe Schools Act of 2013. This bill would repeal the federal Gun-Free School Zones act and allow teachers and principals, who are qualified by their state to carry concealed, to also do so at public and private schools.

 

The Stockman bill is truly the greatest step that Congress could take toward securing our schools. But some in Washington are so blinded by their anti-gun ideology, that they care more about protecting themselves than they do our children. In the roughly 15 square block area of Capitol Hill, there are 1,800 Capitol Hill police officers to protect every Representative and Senator. How many armed adults are protecting our kids on any given day at school?

 

It’s this principle of self-defense which explains why we haven’t seen any school massacres in places like Utah and Harrold, Texas, where teachers or principals can carry concealed. Come to think of it, we also haven’t heard of any horror story scenarios in these jurisdictions — like students finding a gun in a purse, or a teacher accidentally firing his weapon.

 

Concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding segment of society. They are eight times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen and — in light of a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics study on police abuse — almost 800 times less likely than law-enforcement.xxxi

 

That’s why Gun Owners of America is encouraging more states to emulate places like Utah. Constitutionally, the states should be the ones working out their school security issues. But at the very least, Congress should repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act and stop threatening to punish law-abiding teachers and principals who want a gun to stop another Adam Lanza from killing their students and fellow staff members.

 

Erich Pratt is the Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America. Michael Hammond is the legislative counsel for GOA. This testimony was submitted to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee for its hearing on: “Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment” on February 12, 2003.

 

i Robert Farago, TheTruthAboutGuns.com (May 27, 2012).

 

iii Richard B. Abell, Assistant Attorney General, Task Force Chairman, Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms (October 1989), p. 75.

 

iv Bureau of Justice Assistance, Grant Manager’s Memorandum, Pt. 1: Project Summary (September 30, 1994), Project Number: 94-DD-CX-0166.

 

v Copy of “FIST” (Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking) software at GOA headquarters, Springfield, VA. See also Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s News (Oct./Nov. 1996). The default in the “FIST” computer software is for the police officials to indefinitely retain the information on gun owners—despite the fact that the Brady law only allows officials to retain this data for 20 days. One wonders who will ensure that this information will be deleted after the 20th day.

 

vi FBI’s Final Rule printed in the Federal Register (October 30, 1998) at 58311. After the FBI submitted its proposed regulations on June 4, 1998, Gun Owners of America submitted written comments (in September of 1988) to challenge the FBI’s regulations. GOA stated, “These proposed regulations are unlawful and unconstitutional. They are so fundamentally corrupt that there are no incremental changes which will even marginally improve them. Rest assured that they will be challenged in every possible judicial and legislative forum. . . . The efforts to retain information on gun owners for eighteen months—and indefinitely in your computer backup system—constitutes an illegal system of firearms registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926. The same is, in fact, true even for efforts to retain information about persons prohibited from purchasing firearms.”

 

vii “NY Democrat pleads with Republican not to share document proposing confiscation of guns,” The Commentator (January 20, 2013). See http://tinyurl.com/bg7q3jy.

 

viii On August 16, 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins signed Local Law 78 which banned the possession and sale of certain rifles and shotguns.

 

ix John Marzulli, “Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized,” Daily News (September 5, 1992).

 

x Based on research from the Congressional Research Service, more than 150,000 military veterans have lost their Second Amendment rights, despite the fact they have committed no crimes. [See Sen. Tom Coburn letter to Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (Oct. 16, 2007).] This process began during the Clinton administration when the Department of Veterans Affairs sent the names of more than 80,000 veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS system. But as Senator Tom Coburn found out ten years later, these were not veterans that were guilty of crimes, rather, they were former soldiers who had gone to the VA for counseling to help them deal with the stress from prior combat. Many of them were suffering from PTSD. But because a doctor or psychiatrist determined that a third party should help them manage their financial affairs, they lost their Second Amendment rights. How could this happen? Well, the legislative history began in 1968 when Congress banned those who are “adjudicated mentally defective” from owning firearms. This was an attempt to keep those criminals who had escaped a conviction by reason of insanity from owning weapons. The problem with applying this to veterans, of course, is that they have lost their gun rights without being “adjudicated” in a court of anything — no judge, no impartial jury, no nothing. These veterans are being disarmed because a guardian has been appointed to look over their checkbook and manage their financial affairs. (Would the President and most members of the Congress lose their gun rights based on this “inability to manage one’s financial affairs” standard?) Sadly, what began illegally under the Clinton administration was later “legalized” by the Veterans Disarmament Act — otherwise known as the NICS Improvement Act of 2008.

 

xii Nok-Noi Ricker, “Call volume shuts down FBI’s firearm background checks, stops Maine sales on Black Friday,” Bangor (Maine) Daily News (November 23, 2012).

 

xiii John Lott, “The ‘40 Percent’ Myth: The figure gun-control advocates are throwing around is false,” National Review Online (January 24, 2013) at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott.

 

xv Congressional Record (May 8, 1991), at H 2859, H 2862.

 

xvi Wall Street Journal (March 3, 1994) at A10.

 

xvii For example, see http://gunowners.org/fs0202.htm.

 

xviii For drunk driving-related fatalities, see Table 3 Statistics, US Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts Report 12/2012: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811701.pdf. For FBI statistics regarding rifle deaths (of which “assault rifles” would be a subset) and “clubs, hammers, etc.,” see FBI Crime Report 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 11: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.

 

xix Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, no. 5 (August 2, 2000).

 

xx General Accounting Office, “Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Act,” (January 1996), p. 39-40, 64-65. See fn. 16 at http://gunowners.org/fs0202.htm.

 

xxi Ronald J. Frandsen, “Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and state investigations and prosecutions of firearm applicants denied by a NICS check in 2010,” Department of Justice (August, 2012), p. 8. According to the DoJ report, there were still another 12 cases were still pending as of December 13, 2011.

 

xxii “If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?” The Blaze (January 26, 2013).

 

xxiii See Lauren Fox, “Conservative women say AR-15 rifles would keep women everywhere safer,” US News & World Report (January 30, 2013) and “Assault weapon provides security, owner testifies,” Baltimore Sun (February 11, 1992).

 

xxivNick Chiles, “Georgia Woman Who Shot Intruder Hailed as Model Gun Owner,” Atlanta Blackstar (January 10, 2013).

 

xxv Massad Ayoob, “Defending Firepower,” Combat Handguns (October 1990), p. 25.

 

xxvi Ibid., at 71.

 

xxvii Barack Obama, Second Presidential Debate, October 17, 2012.

 

xxviii D.C. v. Heller (2008) at 24-25.

 

xxix McDonald v. Chicago (2010) at 22.

 

xxx Ibid., citing Joseph Story (1833) at 22.

 

xxxi Compare Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force [in 2002]” (published 2006) at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf and Howard Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns: Danger or Asset to Texas?” (Tables 1 and 3) at http://www.prattontexas.com/documents/Texas%20CHL%20Study.pdf.

SHOCKING Justice Department Memo Confession: Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Work Without Registration & Confiscation

February 18, 2013 Leave a comment

SHOCKING OBAMA JUSTICE DEPT. MEMO: Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Work Without Confiscation and Gun Registration (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, February 18, 2013, 7:32 AM

 

Joseph Stalin’s firearms confiscation was a tremendous success for the Socialist state.

Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. That all changed when Stalin and the communists took control.  Stalin was able to control, starve, punish and imprison a defenseless people… after he took their guns. (Zinnfigur)

But that could never happen in the United States, right?

Or maybe not…
In this short video by the NRA, an internal Justice Department (the same Justice Department ran by Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder), it is revealed that the Obama administration’s own research shows that an assault weapons ban would only be effective with mandatory gun confiscation and that universal background checks would only be effective with federal gun registration.
Via Guns Saves Lives:

 

Hat Tip Mara

In their January 4, 2013 document, Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies, the Obama Justice Department admitted that an assault weapons ban would not be effective without confiscation and gun registration.
bo gun buyback

In related news… Missouri Democrats are pushing an assault weapons ban with a mandatory confiscation to happen within 90 days of passage….

 

Source: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/shocking-obama-justice-dept-memo-assault-weapons-ban-wont-work-without-confiscation-and-gun-registration-video/

AG Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Does Not Violate Constitutional Rights?

February 18, 2013 1 comment

“A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.”
– John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”

“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
– Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1874)

“Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.”
– William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889
“We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause.”
– Horace Mann, first secretary of education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.”
– Karl Marx, “The Communist Manifesto”

February 11, 2013

German Homeschool Case May Impact U.S. Homeschool Freedom

Michael Farris, J.D., LL.M.
HSLDA Founder and Chairman

THE CASE SO FAR

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled from Germany to the United States after their family was vigorously prosecuted (fines, forcible removal of their children, threats of jail and more) for homeschooling. Initially, the Romeikes were granted political asylum, but the U.S. government appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That Board sided with the government. HSLDA then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals—the federal court just below the Supreme Court.

After finishing the final appellate brief last week, HSLDA Founder and Chairman Michael Farris became convinced that the U.S. Attorney General’s argument revealed some very dangerous views of our own government toward our freedom.

Read More

Romeikes’ Opening Brief
Dept. of Justice’s Response to Romeikes’ Opening Brief
Romeikes’ Reply Brief

(Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Sobering Thoughts from the Romeike Case

By Michael Farris, J.D., LL.M.
HSLDA Founder and Chairman

Having immersed myself for about eight days in writing a brief for the Romeike family (a German homeschooling family who fled to the United States for political asylum), I wanted to share some insights I gained into the view of our own government toward the rights of homeschooling parents in general.

You will benefit from some context.

The U.S. law of asylum allows a refugee to stay in the United States permanently if he can show that he is being persecuted for one of several specific reasons. Among these are persecution for religious reasons and persecution of a “particular social group.”

In most asylum cases, there is some guesswork necessary to figure out the government’s true motive—but not in this case. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to “counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.”

This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.

Dressed-up Totalitarianism

It is thought control. It is belief control. It is totalitarianism dressed up in politically correct lingo.

But my goal today is to not belabor the nature of German repression of homeschooling; rather I seek to reveal the view of the United States government to all of this.

The Romeikes’ case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case for the government is officially in the name of the Attorney General of the United States. The case is called Romeike v. Holder. Thus, the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice is filed on behalf of the attorney general himself—although we can be reasonably certain he has not personally read it. Nonetheless, it is a statement of the position of our government at a very high level.

We argued that Germany is a party to many human rights treaties that contain specific provisions that protect the right of parents to provide an education that is different from the government schools. Parents have the explicit right to give their children an education according to their own philosophy.

While the United States government argued many things in their brief, there are three specific arguments that you should know about.

No Homeschooling? No Problem.

First, they argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others.

Now in reality, Germany does permit some people to homeschool, but it is rare and in general Germany does ban homeschooling broadly—although not completely. (Germany allows exemptions from compulsory attendance for Gypsies and those whose jobs require constant travel. Those who want to stay at home and teach their own children are always denied.)

But, let’s assess the position of the United States government on the face of its argument: a nation violates no one’s rights if it bans homeschooling entirely.

There are two major portions of constitutional rights of citizens—fundamental liberties and equal protection. The U.S. Attorney General has said this about homeschooling. There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool. So long as a government bans homeschooling broadly and equally, there is no violation of your rights. This is a view which gives some acknowledgement to the principle of equal protection but which entirely jettisons the concept of fundamental liberties.

A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.

“It is important that Americans stand up for the rights of German homeschooling families.
In so doing, we stand up for our own.”

—Michael Farris

HSLDA Founder and Chairman

Targeting Individual Rights

This argument demonstrates another form of dangerous “group think” by our own government. The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom—one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself.

The United States Supreme Court has made it very clear in the past that religious freedom is an individual right. Yet our current government does not seem to understand this. They only think of us as members of groups and factions. It is an extreme form of identity politics that directly threatens any understanding of individual liberty.

One final argument from Romeikes deserves our attention. One of the grounds for asylum is if persecution is aimed at a “particular social group.” The definition of a “particular social group” requires a showing of an “immutable” characteristic that cannot change or should not be required to be changed. We contend that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government.

The U.S. government says that Germany’s ban on homeschooling does not meet this standard because, of course, the family can change—they can simply stop homeschooling and let their children go to the public schools. After all, the U.S. government says, the children are only in public schools 22-26 hours a week. After that the parents may teach what they want.

Faulty Understanding

There are two main problems with this argument. First, our government does not understand that families like the Romeikes have two goals when they chose homeschooling. There are things they want to teach and there are things they want to avoid their children being taught in the government schools.

Does anyone think that our government would say to Orthodox Jewish parents, we can force your children to eat pork products for 22-26 hours per week because the rest of the time you can feed them kosher food?

Freedom for the mind and spirit is as important as freedom for the body and spirit.

This argument necessarily means that the United States government believes that it would not violate your rights if our own government banned homeschooling entirely. After all, you could teach your children your own values after they have had 22-26 hours of public school indoctrination aimed at counteracting religious and philosophical views the government doesn’t like.

The second problem with this argument goes back to the definition of immutability. Immutable means a characteristic that cannot be changed or “should not be required” to be changed.

No one contends that homeschooling is a characteristic that cannot be changed. We simply contend that in a free nation it is a characteristic that should not be required to be changed.

Germany has signed international treaties which proclaim that parental rights are a prior right over any views of the government when it comes to education. In fact, the movement for the adoption of these treaties came in reaction to the world’s horror at broad-ranging attack on human rights that Germany perpetrated in the events surrounding World War II. Nazi Germany believed that the children belonged first to the state. The world community answered that and said, no, parental rights are prior to those of the government.

Eliminating the Right to Choose

When the United States government says that homeschooling is a mutable choice—they are saying that it is a characteristic that a government can legitimately coerce you to change. In other words, you have no protected right to choose the education for your children. Our nation could remove your ability to homeschool and your choice would be mutable—since the government has the authority to force you to implement their wishes.

The prospect for German homeschooling freedom is not bright. But we should not reserve all of our concern for the views of the German government. Our own government is attempting to send German homeschoolers back to that land to face criminal prosecutions with fines, jail sentences, and removal of custody of children.

We should understand that in these arguments by the U.S. government, something important is being said about our own liberties as American homeschoolers.

The Attorney General of the United States thinks that a law that bans homeschooling entirely violates no fundamental liberties.

It is important that Americans stand up for the rights of German homeschooling families. In so doing, we stand up for our own.

• • •

To make a tax-deductible gift to the Homeschool Freedom Fund, which will fund litigation and educating the public about homeschooling, click here. If you are not an HSLDA member, join now! For more information about opportunities to support the work of HSLDA see the FAQ here.

Source: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201302110.asp

STOP COMMON CORE CURRICULUM!

HTTP://WWW.STOPCOMMONCORE.COM

“In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”
– John D. Rockefeller General Education Board (1906)

“That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
– H.L. Mencken

“We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists…. We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children’s nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.”
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)

“Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free. The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, if allowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge “Main Street,” where spiritual adventure will be discouraged and democracy will be regarded as consisting in the reduction of all mankind to the proportions of the narrowest and least gifted of the citizens. God grant that there may come a reaction, and that the great principles of Anglo-Saxon liberty may be rediscovered before it is too late!”
– J. Gresham Machen (1923)

%d bloggers like this: